To: Angus Mcleod
Hi Angus,

     About "SBBS & MS-Kermit" of July 20 and 23:

MS> Pardon my butting in, but do you have any particular reason...  So
MS> is anyone out there an old kermit user?
                           ^^^
     Have you gone thru the five archives i suggested to Mohamed Nishath
in "SynchroNet & MS-Kermit" of July 22???  Try to acknowledge the decade
which came after 1992, Jon Robertson possibly did or he simply looked at
the dates!!!  I'm sorry this attempt to make an alternative available to
those who might use it disturbed you to the point you're ready to endure
torture instead of considering it, i only fight preconceptions by acting
on them and i see little else in `Kermit' than a file transfer protocol;
nothing so bad i might want to chew an arm - mine or that of others!  :>

     Clearly, the pre-1985 archaic braind-dead 3rd-party implementations
of the former `Kermit' protocol which are still with us (in old terminal
emulators and BBS SoftWare such as `WilCat!' or `BBBS'), euh...  affects
the sanity of people who try it!  Deal with your old demons, it helps to
gain a more objective perspective of reality.  I'm afraid i'm impervious
to the demonization propaganda around `Kermit', this is not the fault of
the author nor caused by a lack of persistance (certainly not after over
two decades of academic thinking done by him and his students)!  %-b,  I
honesty see little else than a file transfer protocol in it and a pretty
good one, i might add.  The sort of louzy 3rd-party SoftWare i mentioned
above severely cripples a BBSer's up-to-date compliant 2001/2003 version
of the protocol:  `WC' defaults to a ludicrous `Kermit' packet-size of a
mere eighty bytes or so, `SBBS' is even worst as it will go deep down to
sixteen bytes, as i recall!  Really, these are no implementations, allow
me to call this SABOTAGE!  If you had ever tried `MS-Kermit v3.15/3.16',
it seems to me i wouldn't read the same old jokes/objections again!  %-o

     If you don't mind, i'll bring a new `Kermit' to `SynchroNet' SysOps
who are willing to let BBSers decide by themselves if `Kermit' is really
worth a try...  The year after you tossed `Kermit' on the side i started
to familiarize with it;  it happens i've been evaluating `MS-Kermit' for
~TelNet~ use since the last couple years so i'm not likely to scare away
easily when i'm convinced it's a good `ZMoDem' alternative which doubles
as a pretty UNIVERSAL terminal emulator (it takes me as little as a 8088
4.77 Mhz machine to transfer my .QWK packets back & forth)!!!  If you're
against the promotion of BBSing to *ANYONE* who owns a PC go ahead, i'll
take the discussion elsewhere and won't bother with you again...   Well,
not until a "Ready-Made" `Kermit' install kit is released, that is!  ;-)

     No one seems to have been able to make one since `MS-Kermit v3.15';
which was eight years ago, euh...  I intend to use the time it takes and
make it a smooth ride, if Momahed doesn't object - step by step could be
my credo.  No doubt remains in my mind about alternatives;  i'll now act
on my convictions and hence i must ignore topic steering and objections!

                                  8-o

     At the moment, it seems `SynchroNet's `ZMoDem' protocol could use a
revision itself so why not verify its command-line switches while i'm in
the process of figuring out the best way to merge `SynchroNet' with `MS-
Kermit v3.15 Medium'?  Me, i only try to help over what i know best!  It
is no surprize to me when some individuals argue that `Kermit' isn't too
popular;  due to negative reinforcement, mediocrity is rarely popular so
it's why i want a quality `Kermit' protocol implementation for a change!

                                  %-b,

     My prefered test bench, for a taste of what `Kermit' can really do,
is located at telnet://guest.sailor.lib.md.us;  it has a High-Speed INet
feed so i'd be curious to know how fast the 'nix `C-Kermit' version will
be.  My `Kermit' packet-size works fine at 3072 bytes, others need a try
starting from 9024 - the protocol can adjust the size down automatically
but once the BBSer found its "Sweet Spot" it may help to move down.  ;-)

     I don't think i missed to mention Columbia's ~FTP~ site in the post
of July 22 to mister Nishath so i bet those who wish to try the `Win 32'
version of `Kermit' will have no problem finding it, evaluation of `K95'
is possible for a 21 days trial period only but this must be sufficient!

     Remember that reliability is favoured over speed in `Kermit' if you
manage to do the test.  Some people over there are concerned that i want
`Kermit' to take over the world but not so, i only ask for ALTERNATIVES.

                                   :)

     When `MS-Kermit' is "Plugged-In" and working it will be my pleasure
to discuss optimization features like Sliding Windows, Control Character
Escaping, etc.  Right now, i'm still making excursions in SysOp world...

     I can hardly express how eager i am to return to my own again!  ;-)

                                                           Salutations,

                                                           Michel Samson
                                                           a/s Bicephale


... Windows made your old AT look better, now it's the other way around!
--- MultiMail/XT v0.42 - Who wants to make TelNet OLMR BBSing UNIVERSAL?
--- Synchronet 3.11a-Win32 NewsLink 1.64
 *  Vertrauen - Fullerton, California - telnet://vert.synchro.net